UAM

• this is where the D commits a criminal act which results in death but does not have the MR for the unlawful killing

  max sentence = life imprisonment
• D must commit an unlawful act, a civil wrong is not enough - R v Franklin

  where there is a killing but the D did not commit an unlawful act , the D cannot be liable for the death - R v Lamb

  unlawful activity must be an act, an omission alone is not enough - R v Lowe
• the unlawful act must be a dangerous one - this will be determined through an objective test - in R v Church, it was held that it must be 'such as all sober and reasonable people would inevitably recognise that it must be subject the other person to, at least some harm, albeit not serious harm'. it doesn't matter that the D does not realise the risk of some harm and the act need not to be aimed at the victim - R v Larkin

  it is not necessary for the sober and reasonable person to foresee the particular type of harm the V suffers - R v J M and S
• the risk of harm refers to 'physical harm'; emotional disturbance is not enough and D is judged by the standards of what the reasonable man would know at the time - R v Dawson - the reasonable man would only know what the D knew - R v Watson

  the unlawful act need not be aimed at a person it can be aimed at property, provided it is such that all sober and reasonable people would recognise the risk of some harm to another - R v Goodfellow
• the unlawful act must cause death. the chain of causation must create a direct link between the D's actions and the result

  factual causation = 'but for' test - R v Pagett

  legal causation = D's acts made more than a minimal cause to V's death and there must be a slight or trifling link between D's act and the death - R v Kimsey

  thin skull rule = D must take his V as he finds him - R v Blaue
• medical negligence = unlikely to break the chain unless it is so independent of the D's act and 'in itself so potent in causing death' that the D's acts are insignificant - R v Cheshire

  acts of a 3rd party = only break the chain if the acts are not reasonably foreseeable - R v Pagett

  v's own acts = only break the chain if the acts are not reasonably foreseeable - R v Roberts
• it must be proven by the prosecution that D has the MR for the unlawful act. it is not necessary that the D realise that the act is dangerous - R V Newbury and Jones